If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

San Francisco (CNN) -- Police officials said they helped Apple investigators, who searched a man's home here recently.

They were reportedly looking for a prototype of the next iPhone that an Apple employee left in a bar in San Francisco's Mission neighborhood, according to CNET. Apple had contacted the police claiming the prototype is invaluable, the report says.

Four San Francisco Police officers escorted Apple investigators to a home in the city's Bernal Heights neighborhood, the statement said. The two Apple employees searched the home while the officers waited outside, police said. They did not find the item there and declined to file a police report, according to the statement.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do not see a search for possible stolen merchandise unreasonable, in any way shape or form. he was in possession of a highly sensitive and extremely valuable piece of equipment.

and this

Apple's team searched the home, car and computer files, while police waited outside, the reports say. The investigators reportedly told the man that they had traced the phone's GPS signal to his house. When asked, he said he had been at the same bar where the phone was reportedly lost but that he didn't have it, the report says

.

A GPS signal that traces to a home, for an item that was reportedly lost elsewhere?

Probable cause.

Here endeth the lesson.

I am trying to figure out if this is a publicity stunt or if it is real. If it was real, I would be suing the shit out of Apple and the City for millions.

And Apple will sue the shit out of him for negligence and recovery of damages if that phone and its software appear in the hands of a competitor. As it is, he may very well have violated the NDA he signed when he started at Apple, part of which is that he will take all steps to ensure that company commercial secrets are properly protected.

And Apple will sue the shit out of him for negligence and recovery of damages if that phone and its software appear in the hands of a competitor. As it is, he may very well have violated the NDA he signed when he started at Apple, part of which is that he will take all steps to ensure that company commercial secrets are properly protected.

Did you see him take it? Then you don't know what you are talking about. I thought you were innocent until proven guilty. If he took it, I hope they nail him. If he did not take it, I hope he nails them. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Plus, Apple employees aided by police without a search warrant invaded his house under false premises. That is a crime in my book.

My only disagreement with Sonna is if, as it was stated, Apple employees searched the house.
The police with a properly executed warrant do.
Private individuals, warrant or not, do not.

I agree with this entirely. Sworn officers of the jurisdiction execute the warrant, employees of a company do not. However a warrant was not issued because, according to the article, the man allowed police to search his home, in which case a warrant is not required. However, it appears that he wasn't aware that a few of the 'police officers' were actually Apple employees. Maybe he thought they were plain clothed detectives or something and didn't bother to ask?

I'm not sure if it's on the homeowner to ensure that everyone he gives permission to search his home is a police officer, or if it's on the police to inform the man that some of the "officers" are actually Apple employees. I think the guy should have asked, "are you all police officers?", then if he was lied to, then yeah, I think he'd have a case. As it stands, I'm not sure.

"In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
óThomas Paine, Common Sense

I agree with this entirely. Sworn officers of the jurisdiction execute the warrant, employees of a company do not. However a warrant was not issued because, according to the article, the man allowed police to search his home, in which case a warrant is not required. However, it appears that he wasn't aware that a few of the 'police officers' were actually Apple employees. Maybe he thought they were plain clothed detectives or something and didn't bother to ask?

I'm not sure if it's on the homeowner to ensure that everyone he gives permission to search his home is a police officer, or if it's on the police to inform the man that some of the "officers" are actually Apple employees. I think the guy should have asked, "are you all police officers?", then if he was lied to, then yeah, I think he'd have a case. As it stands, I'm not sure.

He could still go after then on false pretenses. I bet every lawyer in the city is lining up to represent this guy.

In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.